Janusz Banasiak

Name as it appears in the record	”Janusz Banasiak” in the header lines and the government’s own file headings; Epstein wrote him as “janush”, “janusch”, “jansuh” and “januz”; his own criminal lawyer’s engagement was announced by Epstein’s lawyer as “Yanush Banasiak”123
Post, as the documents give it	”the Property Manager of EPSTEIN’s Palm Beach residence” in a 2007 FBI interview report; “Mr. Epstein’s house manager” in a January 2006 letter from Epstein’s own counsel to the Office of the State Attorney; “the property manager for Jeffrey Epstein’s Palm Beach home” in an FBI declaration of July 2007415
Period of employment, as he gave it	February or March 2005 to 2017; he lived alone in a house on the Palm Beach property for the whole of it637
Range of documents cited here	11 January 2006 to 19 November 2021, plus a bank statement for the period 23 April to 23 May 2005 and a household manual dated 14 February 200518910
Why this page exists	Epstein paid for his lawyer, and the prosecution said so in writing; the FBI asked him who had taken three computers out of the house before the police search, and wrote his answer into a declaration under penalty of perjury; he authenticated the Palm Beach household manual and the telephone message books for the Maxwell prosecution; and Epstein twice named him a taker under a trust111571213
Covered elsewhere on this wiki	The Palm Beach investigation and the October 2005 search: Palm Beach PD investigation. The substituted service left with him: Sitrick and Company. Instructions sent to him about the island and the New York apartments: Karyna Shuliak

Janusz Banasiak ran Jeffrey Epstein’s Palm Beach house. He was hired through an employment agency at the end of 2004, interviewed first by Ghislaine Maxwell at her New York townhouse and then by Epstein at his Madison Avenue office, and began work in February 2005 as the property manager at 358 El Brillo Way. He lived alone in a small house on the property, drove Epstein and his assistants, answered the telephone under a written script, kept the household petty cash, and stayed until 2017.

He is not a marginal figure in the released files. He is the person the police found sitting at his computer when they arrived with the search warrant; the person the FBI asked who had removed three computers from the house before that search; the witness whose lawyer Epstein paid for, in a fee arrangement Epstein’s own counsel disclosed to the prosecutor in writing; the man who signed a Rule 11(f) agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office on the morning he was interviewed; and, sixteen years later, the witness who identified the Palm Beach household manual and his own handwriting in the telephone message books for the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell. Nothing on this page is a finding of wrongdoing against him. Every prosecutor’s letter about him in the release says the same thing: he was a witness and not a target.

Identification, and the size of the file

The commission for this page carried a triage figure of 4,578 documents for the phrase "Janusz Banasiak". Re-measured on the authoritative pages_fts route, using count(distinct efta_number), the phrase returns 4,656 documents across 5,290 pages. The bare surname "Banasiak" returns 5,454 documents across 6,281 pages, of which 798 do not carry the full phrase; no document carries the phrase without the surname.

That is a floor and not a population, and three separate mechanisms push it higher.

First, the surname is damaged in the index. A Damerau-Levenshtein enumeration at distance 2 was run over the index with fts5vocab built in the temp schema of a read-only connection, in prefix ranges rather than over the whole index, at a length window of 6 to 11 characters against a target of 8. The ranges were: the whole of b (188,866 terms, 86.5 seconds); an for a dropped first letter; and the three-character ranges Xan and Xba for every X in a to z and 0 to 9, for a substituted and an inserted first letter (98,753 terms in total). That is a head bound and it is stated: this enumeration cannot reach a term with two errors inside its first two characters. The enumeration completed and returned 124 distinct terms at distance 1 or 2, every one of them measured individually on pages_fts. Together they add 438 documents that the clean surname does not reach. The largest gains are truncations rather than misreadings: banasia (201 documents, 151 outside the surname), banasial (70, 43), banasiack (30, 22), banasiaki (26, 20), anasia (31, 24), banaslak (26, 11), anasiak (23, 11), banasi (20, 13). Five sampled documents from each of the six largest were opened and read; all thirty carry the forename or the handle beside the damaged surname.

Second, the correspondents did not write the surname at all. Epstein and his staff addressed and referred to him by forename, and they spelled it phonetically, differently, and often. Running each rendering as a bare token and subtracting every surname rendering above leaves 947 documents reachable by no surname form. Every one of those 947 was classified: 894 carry Epstein-household context on their first sheets, and all 53 that did not were read individually. Forty-seven of the 53 are him. Six are not, and they are named: one is scanner damage in which januz 3rd? on an Epstein to-do list is the words “January 3rd”, and five are pages of a forensic device-extraction report whose contacts table carries a Janusz entry that cannot be assigned at the text layer. Those six are excluded.

Third, his e-mail address is a key in its own right. The handle janusz53 returns 77 documents, of which 16 lie outside every surname rendering. It was harvested by reading his messages, not guessed: no edit-distance pass over “Janusz Banasiak” produces it.

The floor is therefore 6,833 documents, being the union of every surname rendering (5,892) and the 941 forename-only and handle-only documents assigned to him by reading. The bounds are named: pages_fts with count(distinct efta_number); a Damerau-Levenshtein 2 enumeration over the prefix ranges listed above at a length window of 6 to 11, which cannot reach a term with two errors in its first two characters; and hand assignment of every one of the 947 forename-only documents. No convergence is claimed. The enumeration is a floor on damaged spellings of a name, and the spider below found identifiers no enumeration can generate.

Every form searched, with its count, including the zeros. All figures are documents on pages_fts.

form	documents	outside the bare surname
"Janusz Banasiak"	4,656	0
"Banasiak"	5,454	(base)
"Banasiak Janusz" and "Banasiak, Janusz"	262 each, same set	0
"J Banasiak"	3	0
"Mr Banasiak"	16	not separately computed
"Banasiaks"	1	0
"Januszs"	0	0
"Banasik"	0	0
"Bansiak"	0	0
"Banaslok"	0	0
"Banasiack"	30	22
"Banasaik"	7	7
"Banaslak"	26	11
"Banasjak"	2	1
janusz53 (his handle)	77	16
janusch	411	369 outside all surname forms
janush	330	257 outside all surname forms
januiz	548	151 outside all surname forms
januz	70	70 outside all surname forms
jansuh	34	34 outside all surname forms
janushc	19	19 outside all surname forms
januisz	28	22 outside all surname forms
jansuz	16	5 outside all surname forms
jamusz	31	1 outside all surname forms
janisz	15	3 outside all surname forms
yanush	12	8 outside all surname forms
januez · januscz · januzs · jnush	8 · 6 · 6 · 5	2 · 5 · 3 · 5
janucz · janunz · januoz · janugz · jariusz · jattusz · jjanusz · jqnusz · jbanusz · yjanusz · ianush · inusz	1 each	0 to 1 each
"Janek" (a common Polish familiar form of Janusz)	2	2, and both were read: neither is him. One is the name of a trust in a schedule of account balances, the other a software copyright block

Three forms in that table are homographs and were subtracted rather than counted. "Janus" returns 1,015 documents and "Janua" 1,425, both dominated by the word “January” broken by the extraction; "Janu" returns 182 on the same cause. They are not in the floor.

The reversed field order was measured because the export writes correspondents surname-first on some subjects, and on this one it does not matter. "Banasiak Janusz" returns 262 documents and every one of them also carries the forward phrase.

How the homographs were ruled out

A count is not an identification, so the question of who else in this release is called Banasiak was answered by enumeration rather than assumption. Every page in the 6,281-page surname population was fetched and the token immediately preceding each occurrence of the surname was counted. The list of preceding tokens is dominated by his own forename and its damaged renderings (janusz 6,405 occurrences, januiz 364, janush 37, anusz 35, jamusz 28, janisz 12), and it contains exactly two other forenames: beata (63 occurrences) and ofelia (28).

Beata Banasiak appears in 39 documents and Ofelia Banasiak in 32. Both are household staff on the same distribution lists as he is: a Palm Beach civil witness list prints Beata Banasiak’s entry with 358 El Brillo Way as her address, immediately above Juan Alessi’s; Lesley Groff copied Ofelia Banasiak and Janusz Banasiak together on the Palm Beach house schedules; and a May 2012 message reports that “Janusch and Ophelia will be here from Palm Beach”.¹⁴¹⁵¹⁶

The correct subtraction for them is zero, and that corrects a figure this page first computed wrongly. Testing the other two names against the clean phrase "Janusz Banasiak" alone produced thirteen documents that appeared to name only a different Banasiak. All nine that survive a test against every rendering of his forename were then opened and read, and not one of them is about another Banasiak to the exclusion of him. Every one names him as well, in a form the extraction had broken past the query set: in three the forename survives and the surname loses its first letters; in two the surname survives and the forename is destroyed; on two witness lists only a fragment of the surname is left. The damaged tokens themselves are not transcribed on this page, and the reason is measured rather than cautious: two of them return one and nine documents respectively, and among those nine is an uncited staff roster whose columns are headed for dates of birth and identity numbers. A one-word key into that is a route this page will not supply, and the identifier and page pin below reach the documents without it. The lesson is the desk’s own: a subtraction is a claim and gets the same testing as an assertion.

The spider, and what it found that no spelling of the name reaches

The name was searched, the hits were opened, every identifier on them was harvested, and each identifier was searched in turn.

His e-mail handle, [email protected], taken off his own outbound messages: 77 documents, 16 of them outside every rendering of the surname. It is the form in which Richard Kahn, Lesley Groff and outside vendors addressed him.

The government’s own index number for him. The prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell indexed its witness material in numbered series, one series per witness, and the series headed with his name runs to twenty items. The index itself is in the release: a table with columns for the item number, the date, a description and the date produced to the defence. It lists, in order, a memorandum of 11 January 2006; a Palm Beach Police Department report of 13 July 2006; a criminal history check of 4 December 2006; an interview report of 11 January 2007; a memorandum of 19 January 2007; an interview report, notes and an exhibit to notes all of 2 February 2007; a transcript of 22 May 2007; a declaration of 30 July 2007; a transcript of 16 February 2010; an interview report and notes of 27 September 2021; two further criminal history checks with no date; notes produced on 6 November 2021; an interview report of 19 October 2021 produced on 11 November 2021; and notes of 13, 14 and 19 November 2021 produced within days of each meeting.¹⁷

That index is the single most useful document on this page, and it was reached by reading a footer, not by searching a name. It is the institution’s own key to the person, it tells a reader exactly how many items of material the government held on him and when each was handed to the defence, and it dates six items that are not otherwise dated anywhere on this page. A second, differently numbered index of witness material also carries a series on him. It is barred from citation on this wiki at document level and nothing is taken from it here.

The numeric-token sweep returned nothing usable as a key to him. Two FBI file numbers appear on his reports and they belong to different investigations, which this page previously merged into one. The 2007 Miami reports carry 31E-MM-108062, reaching about 1,380 documents; the 2021 report carries the New York file 50D-NY-3027571, reaching about 750. Neither is a key to him - each is a key to a case file holding thousands of documents about other people - and the counts are given to the nearest ten because the two routes disagree at the margin.

The act rate, with both denominators

Measured over the whole 4,656-document phrase population rather than sampled, and classified from each document’s own first sheet:

class	documents	share of population	share of documents carrying any sender value
his name in the sender field	921	19.78%	22.80%
addressed only, in a To: or Cc: value	1,386	29.77%	34.31%
header-ful, neither sender nor addressee	1,733	37.22%	42.90%
header-less first sheet	452	9.71%	not applicable
parser refused, ambiguous header mapping	164	3.52%	not applicable
population	4,656	100%

The partition sums exactly to 4,656, and the with-a-sender denominator is 4,040, being the population less the 452 header-less and the 164 refused. The act figure is a floor: 164 documents were declined by the classifier and not read. The instrument’s own bogus-name control was run on this invocation and returns zero in every class.

The act rate ranks him high among correspondents and it does not describe him. The four strongest documents on this page have no sender field at all: an FBI declaration, a court-filed proof of service, a bank statement, and a trust instrument. The rate says he wrote a great deal of mail, which is true; it says nothing about what the mail was for. The 452 header-less documents were classified on the first 400 characters of their own first sheets, taking the first heading matched, so the buckets are exclusive and sum to the population: 195 with no recognisable heading in that window, 41 an invoice heading, 39 a state court caption, 38 a federal court caption, 29 an account heading, 25 an exhibit slip, 21 a Palm Beach Police Department report header, 18 a statement heading, 10 an FBI form heading, 9 a grand jury heading, 9 a deposition caption, 8 a subpoena heading, 7 an FD-302 masthead, 2 a trust instrument heading and 1 the household manual. That sums to 452. The 195 with no heading in the first 400 characters are unclassified rather than empty, and nothing is claimed about them here. That distribution, not the sender count, is where this page’s evidence came from.

What he was, and what he was given to read

The earliest account of the job in the release is three weeks earlier than this page previously said, and it is the more consequential of the two. On 11 January 2007 two FBI agents contacted him at his residence and he answered without counsel present; the report was typed on 22 January.¹⁸ This page listed that document in an index row and did not open it. It stands in the release as six standalone copies, and its text is reached at document level by ten documents once three court compilations and a House Oversight sheet are counted.

What he told the agents that day was this. He had been employed by Epstein since about February 2005, hired through an employment agency in Maryland, as “house manager” for the Palm Beach residence: groceries, flowers, driving, and managing the cleaning and lawn staff. A call from Epstein’s assistant would give him the itinerary a day ahead, and he would shop, collect flowers and meet Epstein and his guests at the county airport.¹⁸

Then the part this page had missed entirely. When a female guest arrived, the doorbell rang in the guest house; he would greet her and notify one of Epstein’s assistants, whose name the sheet bars, that someone had come to see Epstein. He told the agents he believed some of the girls were at the residence to give Epstein a massage. He remembered between ten and fifteen different local girls arriving. Some came more often than others. They stayed about forty-five to sixty minutes. He named one from memory. The sheet does not print her name at all and bars nothing of hers; the bars on that page are the assistants’ names, and this page had wrongly described a redaction over hers. And he recalled paying one of the girls for Epstein out of his petty cash fund.¹⁸

He also told them he documented every purchase and transaction he made for Epstein, and that current copies of his expense reports were filed in his desk drawer. Asked to produce them, he said he wanted to speak to his lawyer first. He telephoned Michael Salnick from the house; Salnick asked to speak to an agent, and it was agreed that the records would go into a sealed envelope. He then drove with the agents to his lawyer’s office and handed the envelope over himself, the report says, for the purpose of preserving the records.¹⁸ Eight days later his lawyer was writing to the Assistant United States Attorney about the terms on which he would give a statement.¹⁹ And exactly one year earlier to the day, 11 January 2006, Epstein’s own lawyer had offered to wire his fees. The two 11 Januarys are separate events a year apart, and this page previously ran them together.

A second account followed on 2 February 2007, with his lawyer and an Assistant United States Attorney in the room. The report records that he met Epstein in November 2004 when an employment agency in Maryland arranged an interview in New York; that Epstein gave him no written contract but paid a monthly salary; and that

Due to the fact that EPSTEIN dealt with a lot of financial records, BANASIAK stated that he.was required to sign Confidentiality Agreement.

The sheet prints “he.was” with a full stop for the space, and the quotation follows the sheet. No confidentiality agreement signed by him was located for this page. The searches were written before they were run and are reported with their read counts. "Confidentiality Agreement" returns 741 documents; intersected at DOCUMENT level with the floor it returns 32. Of those 32, the 8 that run to twenty printed pages or fewer were read at the phrase: two are copies of the interview report quoted above, one is a list of items in which a confidentiality agreement with Maxwell is a numbered entry, four concern an agreement negotiated with Maxwell’s attorney over a deposition, and one is a plaintiff’s filing. The remaining 24 are large court compilations in which the phrase and his name fall on different sheets; none was read in full and nothing is claimed about them. "non-disclosure" intersected with the floor returns 7 documents and none is his instrument. Not one of the documents read is, or purports to be, the agreement he described. This page does not assert that such an instrument exists beyond his statement that he signed one.

One of those eight is worth recording at the allegation tier rather than the documentary one. A plaintiff’s filing in the Southern District of Florida asserts of another Epstein employee that he “was made to sign a confidentiality agreement with his boss, Jeffrey Epstein, and that is consistent with Epstein’s way of making all of his employees sign a confidentiality agreement”. That is a party’s assertion in a pleading, not a document showing a signature, and it is recorded here as such.²⁰

The same report gives the post and the duties:

In February 2005, BANASIAK began working for EPSTEIN as the Property Manager of EPSTEIN’s Palm Beach residence. His responsibilities included ensuring that everything was in order and running properly; household maintenance, lawn maintenance, and the grocery shopping were completed. BANASIAK was provided with written instructions, approximately a twenty page booklet, on how to manage the property.⁴

The written instructions are in the release. A fifty-nine-page document headed HOUSEHOLD MANUAL over the address 358 EL BRILLO WAY / PALM BEACH, FL 33480 carries the date 14 February 2005 in the footer of every page, which is the month he says he started. Its contents page runs from “Introduction”, “Grooming & Guest Relations” and “Proper Language” through “Answering the telephone”, “Pre-arrival information gathering”, “Guest pick-up and drop-off” and “Escorting guests to their room” to cleaning and maintenance schedules and a closing “Supplement: Contact Telephone Numbers”. Its introduction says the manual “is designed to give you the proper guidance and assistance to perfonn your duties to the best of your ability, while ensuring a consistently high level of service”, printing “perfonn” where the word is “perform”. Its second section sets the standing rule of the house:

Remember that you see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing, except to answer a question directed at you. Respect their privacy.¹⁰

He read it on his first day. On 13 November 2021, sixteen years later, a prosecution note records that he “was shown GX 606 and confirmed that he recognizes GX 606 as household manual he read when he got the job”, GX 606 being a government exhibit number in the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell.⁷

The money: petty cash, a joint account, and a salary cut

His 2007 account of the household money is specific:

BANASIAK maintained a Petty Cash fund of $1500.00 for household expenditures. The account was with Colonial Bank located on Worth Avenue in Palm Beach. The signatures on the account were EPSTEIN, MAXWELL and BANASIAK.⁴

A statement of such an account is in the release, and its title block agrees with him. A Colonial Bank “Classic Advantage Checking” statement for the period 23 April to 23 May 2005 is titled

JEFFREY E EPSTEIN OR GHISLAINE MAXWELL OR JANUSZ BANASIAK 457 MADISON AVE 4TH FL NEW YORK NY 10020

The account number and the bank’s customer telephone line are blacked out by the producing party on this sheet. The activity is the pattern he described: two incoming wire credits of $10,000 each, both identified in the description column as from JEFFREY E EPSTEIN, on 3 and 9 May; and a run of cheques paid at $1,500.00 each on 28 April, 3 May, 9 May and 16 May. Previous balance $9,116.80, ending balance $21,239.89, fees for the period $20.00.⁹ A later statement in the same series is titled to the same three names at the same New York address.²¹ Account numbers and the bank’s own transaction reference numbers on these sheets are not reproduced on this page.

His 2021 account of the same arrangement gives a different figure and a mechanism:

It was either MAXWELL or the accountant the told BANASIAK how to use the petty cash. BANASIAK would remove money from the bank for gas, groceries and such ($2000 at a time). BANASIAK would make a report on the computer of all the expenses. BANASIAK was taught how to do this when he first got hired. After he spends the $2000 BANASIAK would take out another $2000 cash. This was prior to them moving to credit card purchases.³

Both figures are his own, fourteen years apart, and this page resolves neither. The 2007 report gives the fund as $1,500.00 and the 2021 report gives the withdrawal as $2,000 at a time; the 2005 statement’s cheques are $1,500.00 each, which favours the earlier figure for that year, and says nothing about later years. The expense reports he says he prepared on the computer were not located for this page.

On pay, the 2021 report records:

BANASIAK started at $65,000 and got raises every year. After EPSTEIN got arrested, BANASIAK was told EPSTEIN cut 10 % from everyone’s pay. After EPSTEIN finished his sentence, he did not raise the employees back 10%. BANASIAK then seriously considered changing his job but nothing came up.³

The sheet prints “$65,000” and “10 %” with a space before the sign, and the quotation follows the sheet.

January 2006: Epstein pays the witness’s lawyer, and tells the prosecutor

On 11 January 2006 the Office of the State Attorney in West Palm Beach had Banasiak booked to give a statement at 1:30 that afternoon. Three faxes reached the prosecutor before the appointment, and between them they are the sharpest single hour in his file.

The first two came from Epstein’s own criminal lawyer, Guy P. Fronstin, over his firm’s letterhead, and they are the same letter sent twice a few minutes apart. Under the subject line “Jeff Epstein / Third Party Attorney Fee Payment”, Fronstin wrote:

As you know I represent Mr. Jeff Epstein. Mr. Epstein’s house manager, Yanush Banasiak, was asked to speak with your office regarding the matter that I represent Mr. Epstein on. In anticipation of Mr. Banasiak’s meeting with your office he decided to retain legal counsel. Yesterday, he met with and retained, attorney Michael Salnick, who will be attending Mr. Banasiak’s statement in your office today at 1:30 p.m.

Since your questioning of Mr. Banasiak concerns information that he may have that arises out of his employment with Mr. Epstein, Mr. Epstein will be paying Mr. Banasiak’s attorneys fees. I felt it important to notify you of this third party attorney fee payment structure and confirm that you have no objection. Mr. Epstein would like to wire the payment for Mr. Salnick’s representation to Mr. Salnick as soon as possible. Therefore, I would appreciate your getting back to me today on this issue.

The letter is signed in ink. The Assistant State Attorney’s name is blacked out in the address block and in the salutation, the firm’s second letterhead line and street line are blacked out, and one entry above the legible “Michael Salnick” on the copy line is blacked out.¹ The letter was addressed to Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek of the Office of the State Attorney in West Palm Beach, and this page takes her name from a copy of it produced in the Department of Justice series.²² She was a government lawyer acting in an official capacity and is named here on that basis.

The third fax came from the lawyer Banasiak had retained the day before. Michael Salnick, of Salnick & Fuchs, wrote to the same prosecutor:

This shall confirm the rescheduling of the meeting with my client until Tuesday, January 17, 2006 at 11:00 a.m. at your office. In one of our conversations earlier this morning, you indicated that you would be inclined to issue him a subpoena. I would please ask that you fax a copy of that subpoena to my office prior to our meeting.

The sheet prints this passage cleanly. A second page of the same transmission carries a one-line postscript, and it is the sharpest sentence in the file:

One more thing: Can my client pick up his computer and related equipment before our meeting on Tuesday? Please advise and thank you.

That is the image at 400 dpi and not the extraction, which mangles most of the first clause. The mangled form is not transcribed on this page: it returns two documents, one of them an uncited seventy-page compilation, and the identifier and page pin below reach the sheet without it.²³

So: a statement set for 1:30 p.m. was moved six days, a subpoena was requested in advance of it, the return of a computer was asked for before it, and the prosecutor was told the same afternoon that the employer would be wiring the witness’s legal fees. Fronstin’s letter does not say how much, and no figure for the fee is on any document read for this page. The searches run for one were the surname with "Salnick", "Fronstin" with "wire", and "Third Party Attorney Fee Payment", which returns three documents in the whole corpus: the six-page transmission cited here, which carries the letter twice; the Department of Justice copy from which the recipient is named above; and one further copy in a third production.

January and February 2007: an immunity request, a refusal, and a conflict-of-interest demand

A year later the matter had moved from the State Attorney to a federal grand jury, and Salnick was still acting. The exchange between him and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida survives as a run of five letters in one document, and the prosecution’s side of it is signed out over the name of the United States Attorney, R. Alexander Acosta.

On 19 January 2007 Salnick wrote to the Assistant United States Attorney:

Thank you for speaking with me this afternoon regarding this matter. I know that during our phone conversation you indicated that my client is not a target. In the spirit of being thorough, I want to confirm that he is a witness and nothing else.

When we got off the phone, I began to feel somewhat uneasy with the standard immunity letter. That is in no way a reflection on you, but more my discomfort with what protection that would really provide him. I would please request that you reconsider and offer my client a formal grant of immunity. I realize that requires a procedure within your office, but that would make the situation more comfortable. If this occurs, my client would certainly tell the truth to the extent of his knowledge.²⁴

On 23 January the office answered, over Acosta’s name:

I am in receipt of your letter regarding Janusz Banasiak. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Banasiak is not a target of the grand jury investigation and he has been subpoenaed solely as a witness. During our last conversation, you stated that Mr. Banasiak would be willing to speak with investigators pursuant to a Kastigar letter. Please let me know if that is the case and, if so, when you and Mr. Banasiak are available.

My office would rightly question why I would ask for immunity for a person who I feel faces no criminal exposure, so, if that remains your position, I would like to discuss the matter further.²⁵

On 24 January two further letters went out on the same day. The first sets out what the office would give instead of immunity: not a grant, but treatment of the debriefing under Rule 11(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Banasiak is not a target of this investigation. However, to address your concern about criminal exposure, if your client complies with every provision of this agreement, then the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (“this Office”) will treat all statements made by your client during said debriefing as statements made pursuant to Rule 11(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. This is not a grant of immunity, which can be given only with approval of the Justice Department, but protects your client from having the statements made by him during the interview from being used against him directly.

Your client agrees to be fully interviewed, that is, to provide information concerning your client’s knowledge of, and participation in criminal activity, including but not limited to the procurement of prostitutes.²⁶

The copy of that letter in the government’s own witness file is unexecuted. Its acknowledgement page carries the recital “I have received this letter from my attorney, Michael Salnick, Esquire, have read it and discussed it with my attorney”, and beneath it three printed rules: Dated:, a rule above his typed name, and a rule above “Michael Salnick, Esquire” after the words “Witnessed by:”. Read at the image at 400 dpi, all three rules are empty: no ink, no redaction bar, no manuscript date. This is an empty printed rule and not a withheld signature.²⁶

An executed counterpart is in the release. A version of the same letter dated 2 February 2007, whose first page reads “to occur today, February 2, 2007” where the January draft left the day blank, carries on its third page a manuscript date 2/2/07 on the Dated: rule, a signature running across and over the rule above his typed name, and a second signature over the rule above his lawyer’s. Read at the image at 600 dpi: the strokes vary in width, sit off the baseline, and run over both the printed rules and the typed characters beneath them. That is ink, and the sheet is signed.²⁷

The second letter of 24 January is the one that matters most, because in it the prosecution put the fee arrangement in issue:

I also am concerned about a potential conflict of interest in your representation of Mr. Banasiak. In case of future litigation regarding this issue, please provide me with information regarding who is paying (directly or indirectly) for your services on behalf of Mr. Banasiak, the scope of your representation, and whether you are taking direction on this matter from anyone other than Mr. Banasiak. If any formal or informal joint defense agreements exist, whether in writing or otherwise, please provide a copy of such agreements. If the agreement is purely oral, please provide a written summary of its terms.

The same letter adds, of the grand jury subpoena: “If Mr. Banasiak is no longer amenable to an informal meeting, he must still appear pursuant to the subpoena so that I may ask him questions. If Mr. Banasiak improperly invokes any Fifth Amendment privilege, I intend to move to compel his answers.”¹¹

No answer to that demand was located, and the test for one was run at document level and every small return read. "joint defense" returns 319 documents and 8 within the floor; "who is paying" returns 108 and 4 within the floor; "potential conflict of interest in your representation" returns 8 documents in the whole corpus. The two returns small enough to read whole were both read, and both are further copies of the demand rather than replies to it: a two-page copy of the same 24 January letter, indexed under a different series number and stamped CONFIDENTIAL rather than carrying a protective-order legend, and the ten-page run quoted above. Of the six larger returns, the demand is reproduced twice as an exhibit inside one 310-page federal filing, at two separate sheets; in the others the search terms and his name fall on different sheets and none was read in full. The forms were written before they were run. No document read for this page states who paid Salnick’s fee in the end, in what amount, or on what terms, and this page does not assert what the answer was. What the release does hold is Epstein’s lawyer saying in January 2006 that Epstein would pay, and a federal prosecutor asking in January 2007 who was paying and whether the lawyer was taking instructions from anyone else.

On 30 January Salnick wrote once more:

While I realize in your letter of January 23, 2007 you indicated that your office would question why you would ask for immunity for someone who you feel faces no criminal exposure, it isn’t your feelings that I take issue with. Historically, I have not been happy with the way the Town of Palm Reach has handled this matter. While that may not have impacted directly upon Mr. Banasiak, the fact remains that he is still involved in this matter through your °face’s investigation.

am asking that you reconsider my request for immunity so that I can alleviate the concerns that are still bothering me. Alternatively, if you can send a letter indicating he will never be prosecuted for anything resulting out of this investigation (although I know he has committed no criminal conduct whatsoever) that might suffice. We have certainly acted in good faith by our promptly turning over the documents requested.

The quotation follows the sheet, which prints “Palm Reach” for Palm Beach, “°face’s” for office’s, and drops the opening “I” of the second paragraph.²⁸ Four days later he signed the Rule 11(f) letter and gave the interview.

The computers

On 30 July 2007 the FBI case agent on the Epstein investigation signed an ex parte declaration in support of the government’s response to a motion to quash two grand jury subpoenas, numbered OLY-63 and OLY-64, for three computers. The declaration says why the government wanted them:

From my review of the photographs from the execution of the search warrant and my conversations with Detective ██ I believe that certain items were purposely removed from Mr. Epstein’s home in anticipation of an execution of a search warrant. This includes the three computers which are the subject of grand jury subpoena numbers OLY-63 and OLY-64.

and, later, that the computers would help the grand jury decide

if any evidence exists that may indicate Mr. Epstein’s involvement in the obstruction of justice through the tampering with or destruction of evidence.⁵

One paragraph further on, the same declaration gives the legal reason the household’s written telephone messages mattered, and this page had stopped short of it. The agent sets out two possible offences, travel in interstate commerce for illicit sexual conduct with a minor and the use of a facility of interstate commerce to persuade or entice a minor, and then supplies the bridge:

A telephone is a facility of interstate commerce, so evidence of the use of the telephones to arrange appointments for sexual activity is evidence of a violation of Section 2422(b).

So the message books are not background. On the government’s own reasoning they are the evidence of the offence, and the declaration goes on to say that printouts of the household’s electronic message logs were recovered by the police from the trash at the Palm Beach address, and that one log recorded a message left for Epstein by an assistant in April 2005 about the availability of an identified underage female, with carrier telephone records showing contact five minutes earlier. That five minutes is the agent’s own comparison across two different record systems, a household printout against a carrier’s log, and neither stamp carries a zone on the sheet, so this page reports it as his comparison and not as an interval of the record. Nothing identifying that person is reproduced here. The sheet does not print her name at all; the bar on that page is the assistant’s.²⁹

And the paragraph after that is why his authentication mattered at all. The agent states the government’s belief that someone other than Epstein prepared the computerised calendar and the telephone messages, and draws the consequence that Epstein would not be required to authenticate anything recovered from the computers.²⁹ Fourteen years later the prosecution showed the household manual and the message books to the man who had kept the house, and he confirmed them.

Banasiak is how the government traced them. Paragraph 20 of the declaration reads:

With respect to the computers that are the subject of the pending grand jury subpoenas, through the grand jury investigation, I was asked to interview Janusz Banasiak, the property manager for Jeffrey Epstein’s Palm Beach home. Banasiak worked in that position during the time of the execution of the search warrant. I asked Banasiak whether he had removed the computers from the Epstein household. He stated that he had not, and that ██ and a private investigator, “Paul,” had come to the house and taken the computers away.

The declaration goes on to identify “Paul” as Paul Lavery, a private investigator, and to record that Lavery, interviewed by telephone after initially refusing a grand jury subpoena, said he had travelled to Epstein’s home in the autumn of 2005, that the computer equipment was handed to him already in boxes, that he held it for a few days and then delivered it to William Riley of Riley Kiraly, a private investigation firm in Miami, and that he had not tampered with it. Grand jury subpoenas were then prepared for Riley and his firm’s custodian of records; the declaration records that Riley accepted service by fax and “did not indicate whether he still had custody of the subpoenaed computers”, and that the agent believed he “either currently has the computers in his possession or knows who has them”. The declaration’s last substantive sentence names the criminal-defence lawyer who was then acting for Epstein, Roy Black, and it names him in order to say that the investigators were not his: “Neither Mr. Riley nor Riley Kiraly works exclusively for Roy Black or any other lawyer or law firm.”⁵

Fourteen years later he gave the prosecution a first-hand account of the same removal, and it differs from the 2007 report of what he said. A note of the meeting of 13 November 2021 records:

Man with last named Riley took computers before search; JB let Riley in house and left when he was removing computers from the house; Riley told JB that he did not need any help; when Riley finished, Riley told JB that he was done and JB saw Riley get into his car

On the sheet that bullet is the second of a pair, and the first of the pair reads “remembers computers were removed from the house, not sure how long before, but remembers it was before the search”. The order above is inverted from the sheet’s for the sake of the narrative and is disclosed here rather than left to be discovered: the general recollection stands first on the note and the Riley account second.⁷

The two accounts name different people at the door and this page resolves neither. In 2007 the agent recorded him as saying that a person whose name the producing party has withheld, together with a private investigator called Paul, came and took the computers; in 2021 he described letting in a man whose surname was Riley and watching him carry them out. Lavery’s own account, as the declaration gives it, has him collecting boxed equipment from the house and passing it to Riley afterwards. The sequence the three accounts have in common is that the computers left 358 El Brillo Way before the police search, that a private investigator took them, and that Banasiak was the member of staff who was there.

A separate question is his own computer, and this page does not join the two. The postscript to Salnick’s fax of 11 January 2006 asks whether his client can pick up “his computer and related equipment” before the rescheduled meeting of 17 January.²³ Nothing read for this page says which machine that was, whether it was one of the three under subpoena, or who held it. The two facts sit side by side in the release and nothing read for this page connects them. The forms run were the surname conjoined with "OLY-63", the surname conjoined with "computer", and "computer and related equipment"; the forms were written before they were run, and what came back is the material set out above and nothing that identifies his machine.

The message books and the telephone

The Palm Beach house wrote down its telephone messages, and the prosecution used the books in the Maxwell trial. The witness who identified the handwriting was Banasiak.

His 2021 interview report records that Maxwell told him how to answer the telephone and that he was not to say whether Epstein was in the house:

EPSTEIN did not answer the phones. MAXWELL tells BANASIAK to answer the phones and what to say. BANASIAK is told to introduce myself and say this is EPSTEIN residence. BANASIAK is not allowed to tell that person on the phone if EPSTEIN is there or not. BANASIAK would take a message and then write it down in a message book.

The sheet prints “introduce myself” in the middle of a third-person report, which is the drafter’s own slip, and the quotation follows the sheet.³ The same report then records, under a line set in capitals on the sheet reading BANASIAK IS THEN SHOWN MESSAGE PADS, that he identified his own handwriting and signature on named slips by date and slip number across two exhibit items, and it lists them: forty-five dated entries, each with the numbers of the individual message slips he recognised, running from 2 February 2005 to 3 September 2005. Two of the forty-five are printed out of order and one is printed with a 2004 year among an otherwise unbroken 2005 run; the count and the range above are of the entries as the sheet prints them. Of a third book he said he did not recognise the handwriting.³

The 2021 trial-preparation note gives the exhibit numbers, recording that he “was shown GX I and GX 4 and confirmed he recognized as message books containing his handwriting; confirmed that GX 1-O and GX4-F through GX4-K contain his handwriting”. The same note records where the books were kept: “GM pointed to message book which was next to phone, write message in book”, and “When message book was filled up, book was put in a desk drawer in office next to kitchen”.⁷

The 27 September 2021 interview adds his description of the other books in the house:

Yes there was a contact book. There was small books with all the numbers for those people inside of them. They held the numbers for those girls. It was a square black book for people he has contact with, famous people too, CLINTON, TRUMP and others. BANASIAK thinks there was a couple books in the house, each house has this kind of book, seen in New York also. The book was square, about 6 inches by 6 inches, 3 inches thick maybe, with names and numbers inside. BANASIAK never used this book.⁶

He corrected that description himself at the next interview, and the correction is the opening paragraph of the 19 October 2021 report:

BANASIAK wants to make correction on a previous statement he made about the phone book with black cover. He states its not black, its maybe silver or metal square on the front and back. He had previously mentioned that it was black because he remembers people saying someone was trying to sell the black book. The pages were in between the metal squares.³

What he said he saw

His interviews are among the few first-hand accounts in the release of the Palm Beach house from inside the staff. They were given under a Rule 11(f) agreement in 2007 and, in 2021, after he had declined counsel: a note of the meeting of 19 November 2021 opens by recording that the prosecutors “Asked JB whether he wants counsel, told JB could have an attorney appointed if he could not afford one; JB said he did not feel he needed or wanted a lawyer”.⁸

The 2007 report records what he did after the appointments:

BANASIAK was aware that many females would come to EPSTEIN’s residence to provide EPSTEIN with massages. BANASIAK stated that EPSTEIN would receive one or two massages a day, sometimes even three. The massage times would be spread throughout the day. BANASIAK would assist with the clean up after EPSTEIN received a massage. He would fold up the massage table which was set up in EPSTEIN’s upstairs master bathroom. He would collect towels and wipe down massage equipment.

and, on the same sheet and in the same paragraph, that he “said that he had never seen any sex toys or used condoms when cleaning up after a massage” and “said that none of the females providing EPSTEIN with a massage ever appeared upset”. The report records that he believed the appointments were arranged by Epstein’s assistants, whose names the producing party has blacked out; that on one occasion an assistant asked him to rent a car for a young woman who would collect it from the residence; and that on another he was asked to deliver a gift bag.⁴ The recipients’ names are blacked out on that sheet and neither they nor anything about where he took the gift is reproduced here.

The 2021 note goes further, and it is his most direct statement about age:

Sometimes more than one female came at a time; JB remembers one time when two girls came, one girl waited in the kitchen and one went upstairs; JB doesn’t remember what the girls looked like; the two girls seemed like friends; came together and left together after certain period of time; they were young girls (high school age)

followed by four consecutive lines of the same note:

Impression was they were young; under 20 years old

JB understood that all the girls coming to give massages were “school girls”

JB’s impression was that all the girls coming for appointments were high school girls

JB sometimes heard the girls talk about school; does not know what grade they were in

and, last on the sheet, “JB started seeing school girls at the PB house within a few days of when JB started working there”.⁸ The note also records his part in the arrivals: “JB received phone call from assistants that people were coming at certain time to give JE massages; when person rang doorbell, JB let her in; most of time, they waited in kitchen; JB waited until ██ or ██ showed up and took person up to massage room”. The two assistants’ names are blacked out.

And the government had said the same thing in its own words fourteen years earlier. The July 2007 declaration, arguing for the computers, gives as one reason that they might show Epstein’s intent to engage in sexual activity with teenagers he had recruited from five high schools in the county. So his 2021 recollection that the girls were school girls is not the earliest record of it on this page: the FBI had written it into a court filing in 2007, while he was still in the job. The declaration’s exact phrasing is not reproduced here, being narrow enough to serve as a search key.²⁹

The record carries his answer to the obvious question and it is set out here beside the statements above, because the release contains it. The 19 October 2021 report reads:

BANASIAK has not seen anything that what EPSTEIN was accused of. BANASIAK knew they were coming and going but didn’t see anyone being forced. If he would have known something was going on he would have said something. BANASIAK thought about changing his job. He even looked and called around. BANASIAK thought it was better to stay than to find another job.

The first sentence is printed as it stands on the sheet, without the word the sense wants. The same report records, of the day Epstein’s guests arrived, “When EPSTEIN would arrive with the girls BANASIAK would try to give them space or privacy so he wouldn’t answer as many phone calls during that time”, and, of the plea, that he “read in the news that EPSTEIN plead guilty to solicitation of underage prostitution” and “was shocked when he learned this”.³

A caution about this class of material, stated because the desk has been wrong about it before. Every quotation in this section was read at the image at 400 dpi on the sheet cited, not taken from the text layer, and the co-occurrence of this subject’s name with the vocabulary of the Palm Beach offences is not a search artefact here: it is what his own statements to the government are about, in documents whose mastheads name him as the interviewee.

The search, October 2005

He was in the house when the Palm Beach Police Department executed the state search warrant. His own account, from the 19 October 2021 report:

BANASIAK states that one day police showed up with a search warrant at the house. That’s when BANASIAK learned that there was an investigation. BANASIAK sitting at his computer in the home on the property that he was living in. He saw 4-5 guys show up through the window. They stepped in and introduced themselves, showed and read BANASIAK the search warrant. They told me they had to search the house. BANASIAK was present for the search. There was also a designer for the house present as well. They put everyone aside during the search. BANASIAK then learned what EPSTEIN was accused of in the newspapers.

The sheet prints “They told me” in a third-person report; the quotation follows the sheet.³ The 14 November 2021 note adds two details and one uncertainty: “Not sure of date of search of JE’s PB house; thinks police did search in 2006”, “Architect and designers at house at time of search; JE was supposed to show up but didn’t”, and “Police took JB and others outside to wait while police did search”.³⁰ His date is wrong by a year and the note records him saying he was unsure; the search was in October 2005 on the FBI declaration’s own account, and this page takes the date from the declaration and not from his recollection.⁵

The 19 October report records what he did afterwards: “BANASIAK remembers that EPSTEIN wasn’t present on the day of the search warrant. BANASIAK called the New York office. They called him back and wanted BANASIAK to deliver the warrant papers to EPSTEIN’s lawyer. BANASIAK believes he called after the warrant was done because police asked them to not make any calls.”³

One further document places his own papers inside that investigation. A Palm Beach Police Department report of a refuse collection at Epstein’s residence records that the officer “collected mail correspondences addressed to Jeffrey Epstein, automotive records and personal documents for Janusz Banasiak and Beata Banasiak…” from the bags taken from the sanitation truck, along with Epstein notepaper carrying names and appointment times which the producing party has blacked out.³¹ The barred names on that sheet are not reproduced or characterised here.

2005 to 2017: the hub

The correspondence is the bulk of the file: 921 documents with his name in a sender field and 1,386 more addressed to him. What it shows is a single point through which the Palm Beach house, and often the New York house, was operated.

He is the person the office told when Epstein was coming and who was coming with him. He is the person the pilots copied on tail numbers and arrival times: Larry Visoski wrote to him and to Richard Kahn with a departure, an aircraft and an arrival airport, and a correspondent whose name is blacked out wrote on another thread, “Hey Larry…you should sign up Janusz to receive the flight alerts as well”, the sentence running on into text the sheet cuts.³²³³ He is the person vendors were told to deal with. On a thread arranging a gymnasium delivery to the Palm Beach house, a message whose sender value the producing party has blacked out told the supplier “ok, once again, have them call JANUSZ as he is the one that needs to be there!”³⁴ He is a name on Lesley Groff’s copy line when she wrote to Epstein about the day’s callers, alongside Ofelia Banasiak and Rich Barnett.¹⁵

Epstein wrote to him directly and in the second person, and the instructions are domestic and absolute. “janusch , . erins mother lives across the street, my cunningham passed away, if her mother needs anything please assit”, to which he replied “Of course we will”.³⁵ “januz , dining room only flowers”.³⁶ “have janush ta=e out the white tables in my cabana, put them in spa room, and=put new red table in cabana”, quoted with the two equals signs the sheet prints.³⁷ “send louella and janush to new york today till tuesday he will pick me up tonight”.³⁸ “Make sure janusch comes alone Not with Karyna”.³⁹ “I will leave for airport around 445 . so janusch should make the airport run”.⁴⁰

His own replies are short, and none of the four shortest carries a terminal stop on its sheet. Two of them are quoted here exactly as the sheets print them, export damage included, because repairing a quotation to read better is a silent correction of the record: “Hi Les=ey, it is done”; “So far is ok thanks”; “Got it”; “Ok will be ready”. A longer one runs, with its missing space and its damage both on the sheet: “Yes they finished.We need to plant some tree in empty=spot. Waiting for proposal. They suggest to continue line with existing li=e of ficus and put a tree.”^4142434445

Two things in that traffic are worth naming. First, he moved between houses: staff correspondence has him flown or driven to New York to cover for another couple on leave, and the 13 November 2021 note records the arrangement in his own words, that after two or three years he “went to NY by himself; Leslie sent JB a ticket; JB went there to replace couple who went on vacation for 4-5 weeks”, and that in New York he “drove JE, did work in JE’s house (changing bulbs, serving food, buying groceries)” and “also drove GM around in NY”.⁷ Second, the traffic is where his e-mail handle lives, and the handle reaches sixteen documents no spelling of his name reaches.

30 May 2013: service on Epstein, accepted by his house manager

On 30 May 2013 a process server went to 358 El Brillo Way with a summons and a first amended complaint in Sitrick and Company v. Jeffrey Epstein, Los Angeles Superior Court case BC502448. Epstein was not served personally. The papers were left with Banasiak.

The proof of service filed with the Los Angeles Superior Court records, at item 5(b), service “by substituted service. On (date): 05/30/13 at (time): 10:00 am I left the documents listed in item 2 with in the presence of: JANUSZ BANASIAK, CO-OCCUPANT”, with box (2) checked for “(home) a competent member of the household (at least 18 years of age) at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the party. I informed him or her of the general nature of the papers.” Copies were posted the following day from Boca Raton.⁴⁶ In the law of that service, for the purpose of reaching Epstein, he was Epstein’s household. The judgment that followed the action is covered on Sitrick and Company’s page, which cites this document for the service and does not set out the box that was checked.

The trust instruments

Epstein twice made him a named taker, and the second figure is lower than the first.

An instrument headed “First Amendment to the Amendment and Restatement of the Jeffrey E. Epstein 2014 Trust”, amending a trust agreement dated 1 May 2015 between Epstein as grantor and Darren K. Indyke, James E. Staley and David Mitchell as trustees, adds four new legacies. One of them reads:

I give to Janusz Banasiak, if he survives me, an amount equal to Fifty Eight Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($58,500.00) .

The sheet prints a space before the full stop. The same amendment adds a legacy of $90,000.00 to Merwin Dela Cruz and one of $200,000.00 to Brice Gordon, and raises two existing legacies, to $2,000,000.00 for Luciano A. Fontanilla, Jr. and Rosalyn Fontanilla jointly and $5,000,000.00 for Richard D. Kahn. It was executed in 2015: two trustees swore it before a New York notary, and the manuscript day and month on the two jurat pages are not legible enough on the copy read for this page to be stated here.¹²

A later instrument, the “JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN 2017 TRUST”, dated January 2017 with the day left blank on the sheet, between Epstein as grantor and Eva Andersson Dubin, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as trustees, carries a numbered list of legacies in which item 20 reads:

to JANUSZ BANASIAK, if he survives me, Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000).

Item 19 of the same list gives Merwin Dela Cruz $100,000. Item 21 gives Brice Gordon $200,000, but on a condition the other two legacies do not carry: it is payable “only if BRICE GORDON, whether in his own name or on behalf of I separate entity, continues for’ period of two years following my death to provide such services as the Trustees deem necessary or appropriate in respect of one or more of the real properties beneficially owned by me prior to my death”, and is not to be distributed before two years after the death. The sheet carries a narrow bar over the article in each of those two places; I separate and for' period are the EXTRACTION’s rendering of the bars, and this page previously gave them as the sheet’s text. The quotation above marks each barred article.¹³

Two figures move in opposite directions across those two instruments and both are printed here. Between the 2015 amendment and the 2017 trust his legacy falls from $58,500.00 to $25,000, a reduction of $33,500; over the same pair Merwin Dela Cruz’s rises from $90,000.00 to $100,000, and Brice Gordon’s stands at $200,000 in both, conditional in both on two further years of service after Epstein’s death. This page does not assert why, and it does not assert that the 2017 trust superseded the 2014 trust as to him: the two are separate instruments with different trustees, no document read for this page states the relation between them, and the reduction is recorded here as what the two instruments say rather than as a decision anyone is shown taking. He stopped working for Epstein in the summer of 2017, after the second instrument was dated.

No will or codicil naming him was located. The two conjunctions were first run at page level, where both return 0 documents, and then again at DOCUMENT level against the floor, which is the stronger test because a will and a name can sit on different sheets of one instrument. "Last Will" returns 276 documents and 2 within the floor; "codicil" returns 106 and 3 within the floor. All five were opened: four are the two copies of the 2017 trust, whose boilerplate uses both words, and the fifth is a case report whose extraction is damaged past use. Not one is a will or a codicil naming him. Those are the forms that were run and this page does not assert what Epstein’s will contains.

2021: the Maxwell prosecution

The government prepared him to testify against Ghislaine Maxwell. Four documents in the release come from the six weeks before the trial, and two of them are headed, on their face, “Prepared for trial testimony”. No document cited on this page records whether he was called to the stand, and this page does not assert that he was or was not. The searches run for an answer were the surname conjoined with "Non-Testifying", which returns 0 documents, and the surname conjoined with "witness list"; the forms were written before they were run.

On 27 September 2021 he was interviewed over WebEx audio by two Assistant United States Attorneys and a detective. The report opens: “BANASIAK was interview in 2007 by FBI and states he had a lawyer then. Currently not represented. Fine continuing talking today without lawyer.”⁶ On 19 October he was interviewed in person at West Palm Beach.³ On 13, 14 and 19 November the prosecutors met him three times and kept notes. Two of the three are headed “Prepared for trial testimony”; two carry a second heading line, which the note of 14 November prints as “JB’s previously undisclosed, clarifying, or different recollections/information below” and the note of 13 November prints it cleanly too. The broken form recollectionsfinformation is the EXTRACTION’s, not either sheet’s, and this page previously attributed it to the sheet. Both quotations above are taken from the images.⁷³⁰⁸

Those notes are where he identified the exhibits: the household manual as GX 606, the message books as GX 1 and GX 4, and named slips within them. They are also where he described Maxwell’s place in the house in 2005 and 2006: that he “reported to GM for approximately one year”, that Maxwell “was involved with everything, organizing EPSTEIN’s schedule”, that she told him what Epstein liked and how to answer the telephone, that he “understood GM and JE were very close; thought they were romantically involved”, and that after two or three years she came to Palm Beach less often.⁷⁶ They are also where he set the end of the employment: “JB stopped working for JE in summer of 2017; JE told JB that he hired someone else for his house and found JB new job”.⁷ His 27 September account of the same parting is “BANASIAK stopped working because he found another job. It was a mutual separation. EPSTEIN hired another person.”⁶ Both are his own, seven weeks apart, and this page prints both rather than choosing.

What was searched, and what it returned

Every search form run for this page is in the table in the identification section above, with its count, including the forms that returned nothing. The absence claims on this page are these four, and the forms behind each were written before they were run:

• No confidentiality agreement signed by him was located. Forms: "Confidentiality Agreement" (741 documents, 32 within the floor, the 8 small ones read at the phrase) and "non-disclosure" (4,449, 7 within the floor). The bare token "Confidentiality" was not intersected at document level: it is the first word of the standing confidentiality footer on a large share of this corpus and the query did not return in a reasonable time, so it is reported here as UNMEASURED at document level rather than as a number.
• A figure for his legal fee WAS located, and this page previously said otherwise. Epstein’s legal-expense schedule as of 21 July 2010 records his lawyer as billed $15,000.00, paid $15,000.00, outstanding $0.00.⁴⁷ The document contains no occurrence of this subject’s name at all, which is why a floor scoped to his name could never reach it: a fee schedule names the LAWYER, never the client.⁴⁷ Forms previously searched: Forms: "Salnick" (35 documents, 21 within the floor), "Michael Salnick" (33, 20 within the floor), "Fronstin" with "wire", and "Third Party Attorney Fee Payment" (3 documents in the whole corpus, all three the same letter in three productions).
• No answer to the conflict-of-interest demand was located. Forms: "joint defense" (319 documents, 8 within the floor), "who is paying" (108, 4 within the floor), "conflict of interest" (1,398, 27 within the floor), "potential conflict of interest in your representation" (8 in the whole corpus). Both small returns read whole; both are copies of the demand.
• No will or codicil naming him was located. Forms: the surname with "Last Will" and with "codicil", run both at page level (0 and 0) and at document level against the floor (2 and 3, all five opened, all of them either the 2017 trust’s boilerplate or an unusable extraction).

Every conjunction above is reported at DOCUMENT level, which matters. A two-term MATCH on this index is scoped to a single page, so a conjunction run that way silently misses a document whose two terms sit on different sheets: measured here, the surname with "OLY-63" returns 0 documents at page level and 6 at document level, and the declaration quoted at length on this page is one of the six. Every figure in this section is the document-level one.

The limit on all four is the same and is stated rather than hedged. These are searches of a text layer that breaks his surname in at least 124 measured ways, and the first of them, the confidentiality agreement, is exactly the kind of instrument on which a name might be typed once and scanned badly. An absence here is a bound on the query and not a statement about the world.

Two further arms were run and found nothing, and they are named so that a later pass need not repeat them. No institutional identifier for him was found: no payroll number, employee number, house code or telephone extension appears beside his name on any sheet read for this page, and the FBI file number printed on his interview reports is the number of the whole investigation and reaches 751 documents that have nothing to do with him. No expense report of the kind he says he prepared on the computer was located.

Documents

Footnotes

1. Letter of 11 January 2006 from Guy P. Fronstin of the Law Office of Guy Fronstin to an Assistant State Attorney at the Office of the State Attorney, under the subject “Jeff Epstein / Third Party Attorney Fee Payment”, sent by facsimile, together with its cover sheet; and a memorandum of the same date from Michael Salnick. This document carries two transmissions of the Fronstin letter minutes apart and both are in the same condition. Printed pages 4 and 6 read at the image at 400 dpi. Both are signed in ink. Values withheld by the producing party on this sheet are not supplied on this page, and the fields they sit in are not named. The sheets print “ho met with” for “he met with” and the quotation follows them. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00158220 p. 6. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

2. Epstein’s own renderings of the forename are quoted from the messages cited at ³⁶, ³⁸, ³⁹ and from a message of 13 May 2015 reading “I asked you to get jansuh to send the italian bread that i liked from amid”. The sentence continues on the pinned sheet and the pinned sheet is where it is cut: the quotation stops where that copy’s legible text stops, and no other copy is used to extend it. Read at the text layer; not rendered. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00526305 p. 1. ↩

3. Federal Bureau of Investigation report of interview, form FD-302, seven pages, of an interview conducted on 19 October 2021 at West Palm Beach, Florida, drafted on 26 October 2021. This copy carries a printed diagonal DRAFT watermark across every page, which the text layer does not render; read at the image at 300 and 400 dpi. The subject’s date of birth is blacked out on printed page 1 of this copy. The sheets carry a protective-order legend. The quotations above follow the sheets, which print “introduce myself” and “They told me” inside a third-person report and omit a word from the sentence beginning “BANASIAK has not seen anything”. The telephone-script passage and the household-manual recognition stand on printed page 2; the run of dated message-slip entries stands on printed pages 3 to 5; the search narrative and the employment dates on printed page 5; the pay passage on printed page 6. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00144187 pp. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹

4. Federal Bureau of Investigation report of interview, form FD-302, four pages, of an interview conducted on 2 February 2007 at West Palm Beach, Florida, recording that present during the interview were his attorney Michael Salnick and an Assistant United States Attorney whose name the producing party has blacked out. The sheets carry a protective-order legend. Printed pages 1 and 2 read at the image at 400 dpi. Personal names and one personal-location value are withheld by the producing party on the pages cited here, and none of them is supplied on this page. Neither their number nor the fields they sit in is given. The sheet prints “he.was” for “he was”, “sometime0” for “sometimes”, “Gulfetream” for “Gulfstream” and “massagers” where the sense is massage implements; the quotations above follow the sheets. Names blacked out on these sheets are not supplied here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00158236 pp. 1-2. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

5. “Ex Parte Declaration Number One in Support of United States’ Response to Motion to Quash Subpoenas”, filed under seal in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in re grand jury subpoenas duces tecum numbers OLY-63 and OLY-64, declared under penalty of perjury by a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under 28 U.S.C. § 1746, an UNSWORN declaration, not an affidavit, and this page previously called it sworn, and executed on the thirtieth day of July 2007, the manuscript day being legible at 600 dpi; ten pages including a cover sheet. It carries two paginations that differ: the declaration’s own footer runs “Page N of 9” while the production footer beneath it runs “Page N+1 of 10”, so a pin given in this page’s form is the production’s page and not the declaration’s. The page numbers pinned here are the production’s. Protective-order legend. Printed pages 8 and 9 read at the image at 400 dpi. Personal names and personal-location values are withheld by the producing party on the pages cited here, and none of them is supplied on this page. Neither their number nor the fields they sit in is given. The declaration’s printed page 8 carries paragraphs 19 and 20 and its printed page 9 paragraphs 20 to 22; the text layer of printed page 9 renders the surname with its last two letters transposed and altered, where the sheet prints it correctly; the damaged token is not transcribed here, because it returns nine documents and one of them is barred from citation on this wiki at document level. Printed pages 4 to 7 of this declaration concern identified crime victims and are neither quoted nor characterised on this page. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00158240 pp. 8-10. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

6. Federal Bureau of Investigation report of interview, form FD-302, four pages, of an interview conducted over WebEx audio on 27 September 2021 by two Assistant United States Attorneys and a detective whose names the producing party has blacked out, drafted 29 September 2021. Protective-order legend. Read at the text layer; not rendered. The sheets print “was interview in 2007” and “MAXWELL introduces BANASIAK to these in the.” and the quotations follow them. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00158450 pp. 1-3. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

7. Prosecution note of a meeting of 13 November 2021, three pages, headed “November 13,2021 Janusz Banasiak Meeting” over the lines “Prepared for trial testimony” and “JB’s previously undisclosed, clarifying, or different recollectionsfinformation below”. Protective-order legend. Read at the text layer; not rendered. The heading block and several passages in the body are blacked out, including the name of the person to whom he reported after his first year; the third printed page carries no body text at all beneath its running heads. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00158461 pp. 1-2. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹

8. Prosecution note of a WebEx meeting of 19 November 2021, one page, headed “November 19, 2021 Janusz Banasiak WebEx Meeting”. Protective-order legend. Read at the image at 400 dpi. Personal names are withheld by the producing party on this sheet and none of them is supplied on this page. The quotations above follow the sheet, which prints “school girls” in double quotation marks. The extraction of this sheet runs two words together in the last line and the image does not: the sheet prints them separated, and the quotation above follows the image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00158465 p. 1. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

9. Colonial Bank, N.A. statement of account, “Classic Advantage Checking”, for the period 23 April 2005 to 23 May 2005, page 1 of 2, titled to Jeffrey E Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell or Janusz Banasiak at a New York address. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The account number field and the bank’s customer telephone line are blacked out. Reference numbers on this sheet are not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00185541 p. 1. ↩ ↩²

10. HOUSEHOLD MANUAL, fifty-nine pages, over the printed address 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, Florida, with the date 14 February 2005 in the footer of each page and a production stamp partly blacked out. Printed page 1 read at the image at 400 dpi; printed pages 2 to 5 read at the text layer. The sheets print “perfonn” for “perform”, “arc” for “are” and “moms” for “rooms”, and the quotations follow them. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00066372 pp. 1-5. ↩ ↩²

11. Letter of 24 January 2007 from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida to Michael Salnick, under the reference “Federal Grand Jury Subpoena”, delivered by hand, signed out over the name of R. Alexander Acosta above a By: line for an Assistant United States Attorney on the following printed page. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The quotations follow the sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00158226 pp. 8-9. ↩ ↩²

12. “First Amendment to the Amendment and Restatement of the Jeffrey E. Epstein 2014 Trust”, six pages, amending a trust agreement dated 1 May 2015 between Jeffrey E. Epstein as grantor and Darren K. Indyke, James E. Staley and David Mitchell as trustees; running heads on the later pages read “First Amendment to the Jeffrey E. Epstein Trust u/a/d November 18, 2014”. Read at the text layer; not rendered. The instrument’s own jurat pages record that two trustees subscribed and swore before a New York notary in 2015; the manuscript day and month on those pages are not legible in the extraction and are not stated on this page. This page reproduces no name the producing party withheld on this instrument. The sheet prints ”($58,500.00) .” with a space before the full stop. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00082267 pp. 1-2. ↩ ↩²

13. “Jeffrey E. Epstein 2017 Trust”, twenty-three pages, a trust agreement dated January 2017 with the day of the month left blank on the sheet, between Jeffrey E. Epstein as grantor and Eva Andersson Dubin, Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn as trustees. Read at the text layer; not rendered. This page reproduces no name the producing party withheld on this instrument, and describes no legacy other than the three named above. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00099424 p. 5. ↩ ↩²

14. “Seventh Amended and Supplemental Witness List of Counter-Plaintiff” in a Palm Beach County circuit court action, printing numbered witness entries each with a name and an address. Read at the text layer; not rendered. The sheet’s own footer reads “Page 12 of 22” and it is printed page 97 of the document as produced. Entry 92 is Beata Banasiak at 358 El Brillo Way, Palm Beach, and entry 93 is Juan Alessi. Two further copies of the same list in the release carry the entry for this page’s subject immediately above Beata Banasiak’s, damaged in the extraction to the point that only part of the surname survives. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02763409 p. 97. ↩

15. Message of 11 May 2012 from Lesley Groff to Epstein, copied to Ofelia Banasiak, Janusz Banasiak and Rich Barnett, under a one-line subject naming a visitor and a changed time. Read at the text layer; not rendered. Groff is named as the sender and her address is blacked out; the copy line carries all three names. The sheet also carries a mail-client property-list block whose field values are not transcribed here. This footnote supports only the fact that both Banasiaks stood on the same copy line under Groff’s name. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02555081 p. 1. ↩ ↩²

16. Staff message of 27 April 2012 reporting that two named staff would be away and that “Janusch and Ophelia will be here from Palm Beach”. Read at the text layer; not rendered. The sender and recipients are blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02169941 p. 1. ↩

17. Index of witness material produced to the defence in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, ten pages, tabulating each numbered series by item number, date, description, attorney and date of production. Read at the text layer; not rendered. The section headed with this subject’s name lists twenty items. The extraction of this sheet damages many of the item numbers, rendering hyphens as digits and the heading itself as a run of broken characters; the item dates and descriptions quoted above are taken from the rows as the extraction gives them and the individual item numbers are not transcribed on this page. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00082212 p. 5. ↩

18. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01227780 pp. 3-4 (printed Page 3 of 4 and Page 4 of 4), FBI form FD-302, date of interview 11 January 2007, typed 22 January 2007, also produced as MM13-JANUSZ BANASIAK-000003 and -000004 and marked subject to a protective order. Read at the image at 400 dpi by a verification pass, which found it after noting that this page had printed the document’s index row without opening it. The sheet bars the interviewee’s own preliminary line, the names of Epstein’s assistants, the name of the one girl he identified from memory, and his lawyer’s telephone number. No barred value is reproduced here. The page’s earlier statement that the earliest account was 2 February 2007 was wrong and is corrected above. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

19. The letter of 19 January 2007 from his counsel, addressed to the Assistant United States Attorney and not to the State Attorney. This page previously gave the recipient as the State Attorney, contradicting its own account of the same letter elsewhere on this page. The 11 January 2006 fee offer from Epstein’s counsel is a separate document a year earlier; see the fee section above. ↩

20. Plaintiff’s response to a defence filing in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, five pages, asserting on information and belief that a named Epstein employee was made to sign a confidentiality agreement. Read at the text layer; not rendered. This is a party’s pleading and not a document evidencing any signature; it is cited on this page only for the assertion it makes about a practice, and the employee named in it is not this page’s subject. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02749266 p. 4. ↩

21. A further Colonial Bank statement of the same account title, for a statement period beginning in January, read at the text layer and not rendered; the account number on it is blacked out and is not reproduced here. This footnote supports only the fact that more than one statement of an account so titled is in the release. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01701121 p. 34. ↩

22. A copy of the same letter of 11 January 2006 produced in the Department of Justice series, naming the recipient as Assistant State Attorney Lanna Belohlavek of the Office of the State Attorney in West Palm Beach. Read at the text layer; not rendered. She is a government lawyer acting in an official capacity and is named on this page on that basis. Her office’s street address is not reproduced here, being neither load-bearing for anything on this page nor necessary to identify the office. https://epstein-data.com/DOJ-OGR-00030468 p. 61. ↩

23. Memorandum of 11 January 2006 from Michael Salnick of Salnick & Fuchs to an Assistant State Attorney whose name is blacked out, under the reference “Investigation Re: Jeffrey Epstein / Our Client: Janusz Banasiak”, sent by facsimile in two pages. Printed page 2 read at the image at 400 dpi. The sheet carries a mark where the article before “copy of that subpoena” belongs and the transcription follows the sheet. The one-line postscript quoted above was read at the image and is quoted from the image. The extraction of that clause is badly mangled; it is not transcribed here, because measured it returns two documents, one of them uncited, and it is not needed to find the sheet when the identifier and page are given. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00158220 pp. 1-2. ↩ ↩²

24. Memorandum of 19 January 2007 from Michael Salnick of Salnick, Fuchs & Bertisch to an Assistant United States Attorney whose name, fax line and e-mail line are blacked out, under the reference “Our Client: Janusz Banasiak”, sent by facsimile. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The quotation follows the sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00158226 p. 1. ↩

25. Letter of 23 January 2007 from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida to Michael Salnick, under the reference “Federal Grand Jury Subpoena”, signed out over the name of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney, above a By: line for an Assistant United States Attorney. Read at the image at 400 dpi. “R. Alexander Acosta” and “United States Attorney” are printed type; the By: line beneath them and the signing Assistant United States Attorney’s name are covered by a producer’s bar. The word Kastigar is set in italics on the sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00158226 p. 2. ↩

26. Letter of 24 January 2007 from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida to Michael Salnick, under the reference “Janusz Banasiak”, setting out ground rules for an interview to occur on a January date left blank on the sheet, signed out over the name of R. Alexander Acosta above a By: line for an Assistant United States Attorney; three printed pages within a ten-page document, of which the third is the acknowledgement page. Printed pages 5 and 7 read at the image at 400 dpi. On printed page 7 the three signature rules are empty printed rules: no ink, no redaction bar, no manuscript date. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00158226 pp. 5-7. ↩ ↩²

27. Letter of 2 February 2007 from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida to Michael Salnick under the reference “Janusz Banasiak”, in the same terms as the letter of 24 January but reciting an interview “to occur today, February 2, 2007”; nine pages, of which the third is the acknowledgement page. Printed pages 1 and 3 read at the image, page 3 at 600 dpi. On printed page 3 the Dated: rule carries a manuscript 2/2/07, and two signatures in ink run across and over the rules above the typed names of Janusz Banasiak and Michael Salnick, varying in stroke width and crossing the printed characters beneath. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01338095 pp. 1, 3. ↩

28. Memorandum of 30 January 2007 from Michael Salnick of Salnick, Fuchs & Bertisch to an Assistant United States Attorney whose name and fax line are blacked out, under the reference “Investigation: Janusz Banasiak”, sent by facsimile. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The sheet prints “Palm Reach” for Palm Beach, “°face’s” for “office’s”, “art scheduled” for “are scheduled”, “bow” for “how” and “certainty” for “certainly”, and omits the opening “I” of the second paragraph; the quotation follows the sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00158226 p. 10. ↩

29. The same declaration, production p. 3 (its own footer Page 2 of 9) for the two statutes and the telephone bridge, and production p. 4 (Page 3 of 9) for the message logs recovered from the trash, the April 2005 log entry and the statement that someone other than Epstein prepared the calendar and messages. Production p. 4 was read at the image at 400 dpi by the verification pass of 20260918T034016Z. This footnote previously credited that reading to an earlier pass which had not opened the sheet - the reading is sound and the certification was not, and it is corrected here. The purposely removed / three-computers passage quoted above stands on production p. 3.⁵ The sheet bars the assistant’s name and the detective’s name; the underage female is described and not named on it. Nothing barred is reproduced anywhere on this page. ↩ ↩² ↩³

30. Prosecution note of a meeting of 14 November 2021, one page, headed “November 14, 2021 Janusz Banasiak Meeting” over the same two lines. Protective-order legend. Read at the text layer; not rendered. Two bars stand in the header block and two inside the body. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00158464 p. 1. ↩ ↩²

31. Palm Beach Police Department report of a refuse collection at Epstein’s Palm Beach residence, within a large compilation of investigative material. Read at the text layer; not rendered. Two names and a run of appointment times on Epstein notepaper are blacked out on the sheet and are not reproduced or characterised on this page. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00231917 p. 157. ↩

32. Message of 21 March 2016 from Larry Visoski to Banasiak, Rich Kahn, Darren Indyke and Bella Klein giving an aircraft, a departure airport and time and an arrival airport and time. Read at the text layer; not rendered. The recipients’ addresses are blacked out. The extraction renders the forename Januiz. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00327491 p. 1. ↩

33. Message of 1 March 2013 in which Banasiak replies “Ok will be there” to a thread in which a correspondent had written “Hey Larry…you should sign up Janusz to receive the flight alerts as well”. Read at the text layer; not rendered. The sender and recipient values are blacked out and the extraction renders his name anusz anasia. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02145772 p. 1. ↩

34. Message of 21 November 2014 in a thread with a fitness-equipment supplier, copied to Banasiak and to a further member of staff, in which an assistant writes “ok, once again, have them call JANUSZ as he is the one that needs to be there!”. Read at the text layer; not rendered. The sender value is blacked out. A second sheet in the same thread carries his reply, “Ok will be ready”. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02091013 p. 1. ↩

35. Message of 4 November 2013 from Jeffrey Epstein to Banasiak and Banasiak’s reply, “Of course we will”. Read at the text layer; not rendered. The message quoted above is Epstein’s; the reply is his. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00675980 p. 1. ↩

36. Message of 1 October 2013 from Jeffrey Epstein reading “januz , dining room only flowers”, answering a member of staff who had asked whether Banasiak should do flowers. Read at the text layer; not rendered. The recipient value is blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01953032 p. 1. ↩ ↩²

37. Epstein’s message of 11 February 2016, carried in a thread with Richard Kahn, instructing that Banasiak move furniture between the cabana and a spa room; the sheet is a later message in that thread and Epstein’s words are quoted within it. Read at the text layer; not rendered. The sheet carries quoted-printable damage at several points and the forename is rendered janush ta=e; the quotation above is given in the form the sheet’s undamaged words supply and the damaged token is not repaired inside it. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02472164 p. 1. ↩

38. Epstein’s message of 23 October 2015 reading “send louella and janush to new york today till tuesday he will pick me up tonight”. The sheet itself is Lesley Groff’s reply to him; his words stand in the quoted block beneath her question and the attribution is taken from the envelope chain on the sheet and not from the top-of-message header. Read at the text layer; not rendered. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00337073 p. 1. ↩ ↩²

39. Message of 18 August 2014 from Epstein reading “Make sure janusch comes alone Not with Karyna”. Read at the text layer; not rendered. The recipient value is blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02099367 p. 1. ↩ ↩²

40. Message of 2 December 2018 from Epstein reading “I will leave for airport around 445 . so janusch should make the airport run carter”. Read at the text layer; not rendered. The recipient value is blacked out. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02196445 p. 1. ↩

41. Message of 22 November 2014 from Banasiak to Lesley Groff, “Hi Lesley, it is done”, answering her one-line question about a delivery, forwarded by her to Epstein the same evening. Read at the text layer; not rendered. The sheet carries quoted-printable damage in the forwarded header block. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01802650 p. 1. ↩

42. Message of 23 March 2011 from Banasiak under his own handle reading “So far is ok thanks”, in a thread arranging a guest stay in Palm Beach. Read at the text layer; not rendered. A telephone number appears in the quoted body of this thread beneath a colon and is blacked out; it is not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02191485 p. 1. ↩

43. Message of 27 May 2015 from Banasiak under his own handle to Richard Kahn reading “Got it”, answering a request to confirm receipt. Read at the text layer; not rendered. Kahn’s signature block prints his firm, office address and three contact lines as typescript; those values are not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02078343 p. 2. ↩

44. Message of 21 November 2014 from Banasiak reading “Ok will be ready”, in the fitness-equipment thread. Read at the text layer; not rendered. The sender and recipient values are blacked out and the extraction renders his name anusz anasia. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02090703 p. 1. ↩

45. Message of 15 July 2014 from Banasiak under his own handle to Richard Kahn reading “Yes they finished.We need to plant some tree in empty spot. Waiting for proposal. They suggest to continue line with existing line of ficus”. Read at the text layer; not rendered. The sheet carries quoted-printable damage at several points inside this passage and inside the handle itself; the quotation above is given in the form the sheet’s undamaged words supply. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA02585764 p. 1. ↩

46. “Proof of Service of Summons”, Judicial Council of California form POS-010, filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court in June 2013 in Sitrick and Company, a division of Sitrick Br[ ] v. Jeffrey Epstein, case BC502448, reproduced as Exhibit “B” to a Florida complaint to stay enforcement of a foreign judgment; the sheet’s own footer reads “Page 1 of 2”. Read at the image at 400 dpi. The clerk’s filing stamp is signed by a deputy in ink. Reference numbers and machine-readable codes on this sheet are not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01092956 p. 9. ↩

47. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00727857 p. 5. Epstein’s schedule of legal expenses as of 21 July 2010, read at the image at 400 dpi by a verification pass, recording this subject’s lawyer at billed $15,000.00, paid $15,000.00, outstanding $0.00. The sheet does not name the subject anywhere - the schedule is organised by counsel, not by client - so no search keyed to his name could reach it, and this page’s earlier statement that no fee figure existed was an artefact of that scoping. ↩ ↩²